Authors: Mohammad Hammad Ather  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi. )
Tashfeen Ahmad  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. )
Shabbir Akhtar  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. )
Tabish Chawla  ( Department of Surgery, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. )
Anila Darbar  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan )
Wardah Rafaqat  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan )
Syed Shahabuddin  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan )
Noman Shahzad  ( Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. )
Shahid Sami  ( South City Hospital, Karachi. )

Technological progress has changed the landscape of surgical practice. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and percutaneous interventions (PC) are constantly replacing open procedures. This reduces hospital stay and allows quicker recovery. The application of MIS should follow the good medical practice dictum by Hippocrates i.e. "First do no harm". To remain abreast with new procedures, the medical personnel are required to update and enhance their knowledge and skill. To ensure safety, the innovations are rigorously tested and tried. The learning curve of MIS is shortened by simulator training and proctorship. Credentialing processes are in place to enhance safe delivery of care. Despite of all these measures MIS and PCI are associated with adverse effects. The purpose of this article is to overview the iatrogenic trauma associated with MIS and PCI in major surgical subspecialties.

 

Keyword: Minimally invasive surgery, Iatrogenic, Trauma, Percutaneous, Endoscopic.

 

Introduction

 

Contemporary trend in interventional treatment for surgical disease is towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) interventions. The introduction of keyhole surgery (laparoscopy), and percutaneous interventions are fast replacing open surgical procedures. The introduction of laparoscopic procedure was a paradigm shift. This heralded the beginning of the MIS era. Laparoscopy itself has undergone multiple innovations and gone less and less invasive. The mini port procedures, single port lap procedures and finally the robot assisted laparoscopic surgeries are some of the examples. Similarly the ability to do wide range of interventions via percutaneous access is another milestone in the modern history of interventional medicine. The MIS on one hand has provided the opportunity of doing surgery with reduced morbidity, early recovery and better cosmetic outcome, on the other hand it is also associated with steep learning curve, and unique set of complications not seen previously with open surgeries. The current review has explored these iatrogenic complications in the era of MIS in various surgical specialties and provided recommendations in the light of contemporary practice guidelines.

 

Cardiovascular interventions and iatrogenic trauma

 

In the current era the standard cardiac surgery has moved towards minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MIS). Similarly advancement in percutaneous techniques have further minimised invasiveness. However, like conventional interventions, they are prone to complications. Almost all the large peripheral vessels have been used to access the heart. Haemorrhagic complications from invasive cardiac procedures are infrequent. Frequency has been reported to be 3-5% in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.¹ In MIS there is an additional risk of groin complications including local vascular trauma. In cases of mini thoracotomy and port insertion when used as approach to mitral valve, the breast implants are at particular risk of iatrogenic trauma causing rupture and migration of implant.² During percutaneous coronary intervention perforation of coronary artery may cause cardiac tamponade. Dissection, rupture, wire entrapment and stent placement closing off neighbouring vessel with its drastic consequences needs immediate attention in the form of resuscitation and early surgical intervention.^3,4 Procedures for structural heart diseases like PC mitral clip for mitral regurgitations, Mitral valve balloon valvuloplasty for severe mitral stenosis and recently popularized Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis are challenging and complex procedures requiring advanced level of technical expertise. These procedures are associated with inherent risk of valvular damage, failure to deploy valve in proper position, rupture of aorta and left ventricle, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, paravalvular leakage leading to acute aortic regurgitation with haemodynamic compromise.⁵ Similarly electrophysiological procedures carry risk of cardiac perforation leading to pericardial effusion and tamponade. These procedures may be pacemaker implantation, radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation, and watchman device to obliterate left atrial appendage. Pericardial tamponade may occur with all kinds of cardiac interventions and warrants urgent action to save lives.⁶ Certain percutaneous interventions are performed to deploy intracardiac devices. Commonly used devices are for congenital cardiac disorders like ASD, VSD PDA and others may be in the form of mitral clip, cinching device for severe MR and watchman device as mentioned earlier. All of these procedures are prone to similar complications. Apart from above, trauma to the aorta including lifting up of intimal flap leading to acute aortic dissection in ascending or descending aorta, aortic rupture perforation with massive haemorrhage may occur.^7,8 The outcome of these iatrogenic traumas depends upon timely recognition, high quality resuscitation and immediate transfer to surgical facility. The surgical management depends upon the nature and extent of injury.^4,9

 

ENT interventions and iatrogenic trauma

 

PC central venous cannulation is a very commonly performed procedure, the most common sites being the internal jugular and subclavian veins. Despite training and experience, this intervention is not risk-free. The complication rate ranges from 0.4% to 9%.¹⁰ These include haematoma, which can potentially expand and obstruct the airway, pneumothorax, haemothorax, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, pulmonary embolism, dissection, stroke and death. Subclavian catheterization is more likely than internal jugular catheterization to be complicated by pneumothorax and haemothorax, whereas internal jugular catheterization is more likely to be associated with arterial puncture. Internal jugular catheterization can be difficult in obese patients due to poorly defined anatomical landmarks. Subclavian venous catheterization should be avoided in patients with severe hypoxaemia, as the complication of pneumothorax is more likely and also poorly tolerated.¹¹ There are no definite guidelines to address accidental arterial cannulation. A review from the Canadian Society For Vascular Surgery¹² demonstrated that with a large bore catheter injury, the pull/pressure technique could be associated with significantly higher morbidity than surgical or endovascular management, including stroke, suddenly expanding haematoma causing airway compression, false aneurysm, or death as adequate compression in the cervical area is not possible without jeopardizing cerebral perfusion. According to guidelines if the site of arterial injury is easily surgically accessible open exploration and direct arterial repair should be attempted promptly. Endovascular treatment appears to be safe for the management of arterial injuries that are difficult to expose surgically, such as those below or behind the clavicle. Heparinization should be considered if immediate treatment is not possible. Current guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access recommend that misplaced catheters be left in place and that consultation obtained from a vascular surgeon.¹³ Preventive measures to limit arterial injury include the use of pressure monitoring before placement of the dilator. This technique uses intravenous tubing that is connected to the end of the needle after puncture. The tubing is then elevated and checked for pulsatility and color. If arterial puncture is confirmed, than the needle is removed immediately and pressure is held. Another method to prevent arterial injury is real-time ultrasound guidance. This has reduced the number of central venous access complications but has not eliminated them. Vascular anomalies and anatomic variations of internal jugular vein and surrounding tissues have been observed in up to 36% of patients.¹⁴ Ultrasound identifies the vein size and location, anomalies, and vessel patency, thus avoiding futile attempts in patients with absent or thrombosed veins and congenital anomalies.

Iatrogenic injuries from minimally invasive general surgical interventions: MIS approaches have have revolutionized the surgical management of diseases. Advancements in technology and experience in minimally invasive surgical procedure has made this approach safer. In certain situations it has replaced the open surgery as first line of intervention. Despite widespread acceptance and benefits of MIS, iatrogenic injuries are not uncommon. These complications occur at the time of access to peritoneal cavity, with pneumoperitoneum, during tissue dissection or at the time of closure of ports. According to a survey the distribution of iatrogenic injuries during laparoscopic procedures showed 37% of the injuries were related to bowel and 36% were to major vessel.¹⁵ Iatrogenic injuries related to camera and instrument ports placement occurs in less than 1% of patients¹⁶ and range from solid and hollow viscus injuries to major vascular trauma. Intra-abdominal adhesions due to prior surgery or inflammatory conditions like diverticulitis or Crohn's disease, and abdominal distension secondary to large abdominal mass or bowel distension are known risk factors for iatrogenic injury during port placement.¹⁷ With suspicion of abdominal adhesions it is proposed to use visual entry of the first port. However, overall complications related to open access have been reported to be similar to blind entry in experienced hands.¹⁸ Injuries related to gas insufflation are related to physiological effect of pneumoperitoneum. These include haemodynamic instability from reduced preload to the heart due to compression of inferior vena cava. This is often compounded by vascovagal reflex with pneumoperitoneum.¹⁹ Patients with poor cardiac reserve and hypovolemia are at risk of these complications. Increased intra-abdominal pressure resulting in splitting of diaphragm and absorption of CO2 can severely affect gas exchange especially in obese patients, and with COPD.²⁰ Other effects related to pneumoperitonium include Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) due to pooling of blood in the distal limbs and subcutaneous and mediastinal emphysema. Careful selection of patients and maintaining adequate hydration are crucial to prevent cardiovascular risks of pneumoperitonium. Surgeons' training and experience of performing specific surgical procedure may be related to frequency of iatrogenic injuries but results from various reports are not consistent.²¹ Despite advancements in technology and experience in minimally invasive surgery, iatrogenic injuries are not uncommon. Knowledge of technique and gadgets, structured training and careful handling of instrument is vital to prevent iatrogenic injuries.

Iatrogenic injuries in orthopaedic MIS: There is significant contemporary interest in switching from conventional open technique to minimally invasive technique. This stems from the presumption MIS causes less pain, fewer wound healing problems and earlier functional recovery. However, due to limited exposure during MIS, there may be a risk of injury to structures not directly in vision.²² This section aims to review various minimally invasive orthopaedic procedures and their associated complication rates. A literature search was performed in August 2019 on PubMed using the terms, "minimally invasive procedure," "complications," and "orthopaedic procedures". Systematic reviews, Reviews and Meta-analyses were selected if they mentioned complication percentage and risk ratio, or the data available allowed complication rate to be calculated. Altogether 28 articles were included for this review. Publications that were on the same procedure were evaluated for any potential overlap in data sets. In these situations, the article reviewing the largest number of studies that reported on complications was included in the review data set, and the remaining articles were excluded. Data on demographics and reported complication rates was extracted. The literature review showed that several complications could occur during minimally invasive procedures. In spinal surgery intraoperative complications consisted mostly of abdominal wall paresis, vertebral injuries, neurologic injuries and dural tear²³ while postoperative complications included pneumothorax, lung infection, wound haematoma, or implant loosening.²⁴ In procedures on extremities, intraoperative complications included nerve palsy and haemorrhage, and postoperative, surgical site infection, insertional tendinopathy, joint stiffness, haematoma formation, wound dehiscence, delayed wound healing, deep vein thrombosis, partial and complete re-ruptures, extreme lengthening of the tendon, chronic fistula, skin necrosis, scar tethering, altered sensation, thrombophlebitis, keloid formation, pain, non-union, delayed union and malunion.²⁵ The highest noted complication rate in Humeral, Spine and Foot procedures was 10%, 33%, 14% respectively.^26,27 It was noted that procedures performed in areas with rich vascular or nerve supply were more likely to have a greater complication rate with minimally invasive technique. Thus, such procedures performed in the spinal region showed some of the highest complication rates going up to 33%.²⁸ It was also observed that procedures that were performed on a cohort with higher mean age (above 60) had relatively higher complication rates.²⁹ The development of complications in such cases may be related to agerelated factors. However, since several studies included in this article did not report mean age, this relation needs to be investigated further. This variation in complication rates depending on patient characteristics among other factors has been observed in several other studies.³⁰

Iatrogenic injuries from Minimally Invasive Neurosurgical Interventions: The last decade has brought significant improvements in the arena of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgical procedures. New technological advancement including Neuronavigation, surgical microscope, fluoroscopy, endoscopy, O-arm, high speed smaller drills and the key hole concept has reduced the short and long term complications as compared to the traditional surgeries with marked improvement in the effectiveness of these procedures. However, some common and few rare iatrogenic postoperative complications can be broadly divided into two categories.

Iatrogenic Injuries during Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The most popular within the armamentarium of minimally invasive spine is percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in thoracic and lumbar spine. Zhao Q, reported an incidence of 5.9% complications during or after surgery. These included intraoperative guide wire breakage, abdominal artery injury, spinal dura mater injury, postoperative pedicle screw misplacement, screw breakage, plug screw falling off, connecting rod loosening, poor reduction, and late infection.³¹ A common complication of percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty is of cement leakage into the spinal canal. The result of a meta-analysis suggested that patients with intravertebral cleft, cortical disruption, low cement viscosity, and high volume of injected cement may be at high risk for cement leakage after Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty with incidence of 54.7% and 18.4%, respectively.³² Another widely performed procedure is Percutaneous Transforaminal or Interlaminar Endoscopic lumbar discectomy. The common cause of failure is the incomplete removal of disc fragments. The skin entry point for the guide-needle trajectory and the optimal placement of the working sleeve are largely blind, which might lead to the inadequate removal of disc fragments. Other reported complications includes nerve root irritation leading to temporary dysesthesia, dural tear and CSF leak, post spinal headache, transient foot drop, intrathecal injection of urograffin dye in the canal, recurrent disc prolapse and infection.³³

Iatrogenic Injuries during Minimally Invasive Cranial Surgery: Endoscopic endonasal approach has become an integral part of modern skull base surgery. Fallah N³⁴ reported a large series of giant pituitary adenomas. The complications include new pituitary insufficiency 16.4%, permanent diabetes insipidus 7.5%, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage 5%, meningitis 2.5% and deaths 3.8% occurred in this cohort of patients. In children undergoing similar procedure, aseptic or bacterial meningitis (7.3%) was the most common complication, and the cerebrospinal fluid leakage rate was 2.4%.³⁵ Carotid artery injury is the most feared and potentially catastrophic intraoperative complication an endoscopic skull base surgeon may face and can be as high as 9% in some surgeries.³⁶ With Keyhole approaches especially the eyebrow craniotomy, the iatrogenic injury to the supra orbital and frontal branch of facial nerve palsies are as common as 21%.³⁷ Conclusion all minimally invasive techniques have a learning curve, therefore a neurosurgeon should be well aware of these complications and iatrogenic injuries. Smaller and simpler lesions should be performed before moving on to larger and more complicated lesions.

Iatrogenic urologic trauma following percutaneous interventions: Percutaneous (PC) interventions on the urinary tract are commonly performed. Iatrogenic injury is a trauma or adverse event incurred as a result of an intervention by a surgeon or interventionist. The rapid rise in the use of MIS and PC although has made possible to avoid complex open, laparoscopic, robot assisted interventions and the related morbidity. However, they are associated with significant and potentially morbid complications as well. Newer energy applications, modifications in surgical techniques, and equipment have all lead to a range and causes of iatrogenic injuries. One of the commonest elective percutaneous interventions to the upper tract is Percutaneous Nephro Lithotomy (PCNL). Other procedures include percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) placement for drainage of the kidney, renal biopsy, MIS interventions for ablation of renal tumours, trans perineal and trans rectal biopsies of the prostate etc. PCN is commonly performed for relief of urinary obstruction, urinary diversion, access for endourological procedures, and diagnostics like pressure manometry.³⁸ Renal biopsies are performed for diagnosis of various medical conditions of the kidney or for suspicious indeterminate masses, small renal masses and prior to initiation of systemic treatment for advanced kidney cancers. Complications in percutaneous renal biopsy are more commonly observed in patients with lower platelet counts had a higher risk of developing severe bleeding events after renal biopsy.³⁹ The most common complication is bleeding. In a large cohort of patients undergoing renal biopsy Xu and colleagues observed that the incidence of sever bleeding was low (0.4%).³⁷ In PCNL, haemorrhage is the most morbid. Vascular injuries are most commonly encountered during access, however it can occur at any time. It is particularly seen if the punctures are too medial or there is a direct access into the renal pelvis. Other injuries include arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or tears in the pelvicaliceal system, causing extravasation and absorption of irrigation fluid.⁴⁰ PC renal interventions are associated with many significant complications including haemorrhage, injury to surrounding structures (Bowel, spleen, liver, IVC etc). Haemorrhagic complications are often self-limiting but they can be catastrophic at times with potential of organ loss and even death. Miniaturization of equipment (mini PCNL, micro PCNL, super mini PCNL, and ultra mini PCNL), improved optics and judicious use of imaging are some of the ways to avoid these complications.

 

Conclusions

 

As MIS and PCI have gained popularity the incidence of iatrogenic trauma has increased. The false sense of security with MIS, failure to recognise injury, delay in diagnosis all results in delayed treatment. There is a need for reporting every adverse effect of MIS and PCI. A global reporting site on Internet should be established to accumulate data on procedure responsible for trauma, modalities used for diagnosis and possible treatment and outcome. In conclusion, MIS can have substantial complication rates. There is further need for systematic reviews on a greater variety of MIS with a more comprehensive record of variables and details of complications in order to see the full spectrum of complications from minimally invasive procedures.

 

Disclaimer: This manuscript or its parts hereof have not been previously published or presented in a conference, or published in an abstract book. The article is not part of a PhD thesis.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Source of Funding: None.

 

References

 

1. Bashore TM, Bates ER, Berger PB, Clark DA, Cusma JT, Dehmer GJ, et al. Cardiac catheterization laboratory standards: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents (ACC/SCA&I Committee to Develop an Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:2170-214.

2. Songcharoen SJ, McClure M, Aru RG, Songcharoen S. Intrathoracic migration of a breast implant after minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2015;74:274-6. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000408.

3. Affronti A, Ruel M. Emergency Surgery for Iatrogenic Injuries attributable to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: When Planning and Time Matter. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011525. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011525.

4. Verevkin A, von Aspern K, Leontyev S, Lehmann S, Borger MA, Davierwala PM. Early and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Following Iatrogenic Injuries During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e010940. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010940.

5. Möllmann H, Kim WK, Kempfert J, Walther T, Hamm C. Complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): how to avoid and treat them. Heart 2015;101:900-8. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304708.

6. Holmes DR Jr, Nishimura R, Fountain R, Turi ZG. Iatrogenic pericardial effusion and tamponade in the percutaneous intracardiac intervention era. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:705- 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.04.019.

7. Baikoussis NG, Argiriou M, Kratimenos T, Karameri V, Dedeilias P. Iatrogenic dissection of the descending aorta: Conservative or endovascular treatment? Ann Card Anaesth 2016;19:554-6. doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.185564.

8. Du XZ, Memauri B. Iatrogenic type A aortic dissection complicating percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report. Radiol Case Rep 2017;12:523-5. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2017.04.019.

9. Langer NB, Hamid NB, Nazif TM, Khalique OK, Vahl TP, White J, et al. Injuries to the Aorta, Aortic Annulus, and Left Ventricle During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Management and Outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:e004735. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004735.

10. Ruesch S, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian access--a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2002;30:454-60.

11. Tsotsolis N, Tsirgogianni K, Kioumis I, Pitsiou G, Baka S, Papaiwannou A, et al. Pneumothorax as a complication of central venous catheter insertion. Ann Transl Med 2015;3:40. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.02.11.

12. Guilbert MC, Elkouri S, Bracco D, Corriveau MM, Beaudoin N, Dubois MJ, et al. Arterial trauma during central venous catheter insertion: Case series, review and proposed algorithm. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:918-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.04.046.

13. Rupp SM, Apfelbaum JL, Blitt C, Caplan RA, Connis RT, Domino KB, et al. Practice guidelines for central venous access: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2012;116:539-73. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31823c9569.

14. Benter T, Teichgräber UK, Klühs L, Papadopoulos S, Köhne CH, Felix R, et al. Anatomical variations in the internal jugular veins of cancer patients affecting central venous access. Anatomical variation of the internal jugular vein. Ultraschall Med 2001;22:23-6.

15. Chandler JG, Corson SL, Way LW. Three spectra of laparoscopic entry access injuries. J Am Coll Surg 2001;192:478-90.

16. Jiang X, Anderson C, Schnatz PF. The safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle for laparoscopic entry: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012;22:362-70. doi: 10.1089/lap.2011.0432.

17. van der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EA, Gouma DJ. Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy. Br J Surg 2004;91:1253-8.

18. Jansen FW, Kolkman W, Bakkum EA, de Kroon CD, Trimbos- Kemper TC, Trimbos JB. Complications of laparoscopy: an inquiry about closed- versus open-entry technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:634-8.

19. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Schemmer P, Kashfi A, Kraus T, et al. Circulatory and respiratory complications of carbon dioxide insufflation. Dig Surg 2004;21:95-105.

20. Giebler RM, Kabatnik M, Stegen BH, Scherer RU, Thomas M, Peters J. Retroperitoneal and intraperitoneal CO2 insufflation have markedly different cardiovascular effects. J Surg Res 1997;68:153-60.

21. Amato L, Fusco D, Acampora A, Bontempi K, Rosa AC, Colais P, et al. Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data. Epidemiol Prev 2017;41(Suppl 2):1-128. doi: 10.19191/EP17.5-6S2.P001.100.

22. Alcelik I, Diana G, Craig A, Loster N, Budgen A. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for acute achilles tendon ruptures a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Belg 2017;83:387-95.

23. Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39:e4. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15278.

24. Lu VM, Alvi MA, Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M. The potential of minimally invasive surgery to treat metastatic spinal disease versus open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2018;112:e859-68. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.176.

25. Li A, Wei Z, Ding H, Tang H, Liu Y, Shi J, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous plates versus conventional fixation techniques for distal tibial fractures: A meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2017;38:52-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.028.

26. Hu X, Xu S, Lu H, Chen B, Zhou X, He X, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis vs conventional fixation techniques for surgically treated humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2016;11:59. doi: 10.1186/s13018-016-0394-x.

27. Bia A, Guerra-Pinto F, Pereira BS, Corte-Real N, Oliva XM. Percutaneous osteotomies in hallux valgus: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg 2018;57:123-30. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.027.

28. Montano N, Stifano V, Papacci F, Mazzucchi E, Fernandez E. Minimally invasive decompression in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Report of a surgical series and review of the literature. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2018;52:448-58. doi: 10.1016/j.pjnns.2018.06.004.

29. Dangelmajer S, Zadnik PL, Rodriguez ST, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM. Minimally invasive spine surgery for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36:e7. doi: 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS144.

30. Lehmen JA, Gerber EJ. MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics. Eur Spine J 2015;24(Suppl 3):287-313. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3886-1.

31. Zhao Q, Zhang H, Hao D, Guo H, Wang B, He B. Complications of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in treating thoracolumbar and lumbar fracture. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e11560. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011560.

32. Chen W, Xie W, Xiao Z, Chen H, Jin D, Ding J. Incidence of cement leakage between unilateral and bilateral percutaneous vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 2019;122:342-8. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.143.

33. Mahesha K. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Results of first 100 cases. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:36-42. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.197520.

34. Fallah N, Taghvaei M, Sadaghiani S, Sadrhosseini SM, Esfahanian F, Zeinalizadeh M. Surgical outcome of endoscopic endonasal surgery of large and giant pituitary adenomas: an institutional experience from the middle east. World Neurosurg 2019;132:e802-11. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.004.

35. Kim YH, Lee JY, Phi JH, Wang KC, Kim SK. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery for pediatric brain tumors. Childs Nerv Syst 2019;35:2081-90. doi: 10.1007/s00381-019-04335-5.

36. Zhan R, Li X, Li X. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for apoplectic pituitary tumor: surgical outcomes and complications in 45 patients. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2016;77:54-60. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1560046.

37. Padhye V, Valentine R, Wormald PJ. Management of carotid artery injury in endonasal surgery. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;18(Suppl 2):S173-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1395266.

38. Krohmer SJ, Pillai AK, Guevara CJ, Bones BL, Dickey KW. Imageguided nephrostomy interventions: how to recognize, avoid, or get out of trouble. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2018;21:261-66. doi: 10.1053/j.tvir.2018.07.008.

39. Xu DM, Chen M, Zhou FD, Zhao MH. Risk factors for severe bleeding complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. Am J Med Sci 2017;353:230-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.12.019.

40. Summerton DJ, Kitrey ND, Lumen N, Serafetinidis E, Djakovic N. EAU guidelines on iatrogenic trauma. Eur Urol 2012;62:628-39. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.058.